TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
I had an occasion to view one of the recent High Court Verdict dated 19/02/2026 which prompted me to ponder as to whether why the officers even at the Central Level pass orders which are bound to be set aside at a subsequent date as and when the matter reaches the appropriate higher court or Tribunal. As a tax professional, I am happy to handle such orders at GSTAT but not at the cost of the taxpayer as the entire fault is on the tax officer in the cases which I refer in this article.
It is my concern that the officers must understand that they are quasi-judicial officials and bound to pass orders only based on facts of the case as well as the extant legal position and should not yield to the pressure by controlling officers on collection.
The story appears to be simple but the reality is very harsh. For none of the fault of the taxpayer, the taxpayer was forced to approach the Jurisdictional High Court at Bengaluru and also there is no mention in the order on cost as the same was not insisted up on by the taxpayer as his entire focus was on avoiding the duplicate demand.
The relevant facts of the case are not fully available as The order in WP (T-RES) dated 19/02/2026 passed by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Bangalore Steel Distributors Vs. Assistant Commissioners ( Jurisdictional, preventive unit and also the State Tax in Karnataka) is the simplest one and issue was decided based on the fact that it was uncontroverted.
The operative portion reads as:
“4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the supplier has filed GSTR-1 and 3B Returns and same are reflected in GSTR-2A of the petitioner. This submission of the petitioner may be taken note of for the present, however, such submission is subject to adjudication before the authority.
5. Accordingly, petition is allowed. All contentions are kept open. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 without further notice on 18.03.2026 and is at liberty to produce fresh documents.”
A perusal of the above judgement reveals several flaws not only in the order but in the entire system of administration of GST across India. Let me justify my above allegation to the extent that is possible by me with the limited knowledge I possess on GST.
Case 1: I have a live case being handled by me where a demand was raised for 2022-23 demanding tax as well as interest based on differences between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3. However, when the issue was examined by me, I observed that certain omissions in monthly returns were detected at the time of filing annual return and applicable tax and interest duly paid in December 2023 itself for which identical demand was raised in 2025. It appears that the dealing officer has time as well as energy to detect a defect but does not have the patience to check the status of payment before issuing the show cause notice. SCN, three personal hearing reminders as well as the adjudication order itself were posted only under additional notices in GST portal which the taxpayer noticed when a call came from the tax officer to instruct him to pay the taxes. We approached him again by way of rectification, but the tax officer had the courage to reject the rectification forcing us to move to First Appellate Authority after 10% pre deposit despite the fact that 100 % of tax demand as well as applicable interest were duly paid.
In my view, I gave the opportunity to the tax officer to correct the errors on non- servicing the SCN in an effective manner, raising a wrong demand as well as violation of Section 75(4). The tax officer is very comfortable in not listening to any of my arguments and also to pass orders which are most likely to be quashed with imposition of cost on the concerned tax officer when the matter reaches the competent court.
Case 2: In the case of Sri Velavan fire works, Sivakasi duplicate proceedings were initiated resulting in double payment of GST. The Maduari bench of Madras High Court simply quashed the second order confirming demand of GST which was already paid.
Case 3: Kindly refer to my article published on 26/02/2026 on the topic stop this kind of atrocity immediately to get full details.
There are several other cases as well which we shall look in the next few articles.
If at all we must focus on productive work and make more GST payment to Government by doing business in a much better manner very well without wasting time on AVOIDABLE LITIGATION, which happens due the poor understanding of their powers by the respective tax officials, it is high time that all taxpayers must insist on not only seeking required relief but also on imposing cost in deserving cases. It is not a child’s play to file a writ in the jurisdictional high court especially by the MSME sector due to applicable inherent cost and professional fees of the dealing advocates.
In case we start insisting on not only tax relief but also on imposition of cost, the respective jurisdictional high courts may by exercising their prerogative rights impose cost at least in few deserving cases. In case that happens, the purpose of this article is fully achieved.